todo_create_apply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral constraint (whitelist/blacklist check and preview requirement), which adds context beyond basic creation. However, it does not describe side effects, failure modes, or authorization details, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, front-loading the core action and critical precondition. Every word earns its place, and the required category note is included without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema reliance because description doesn't mention it), the description provides the essential workflow context (preview first) and category constraint, but lacks details on other parameters and the exact relationship to the preview output. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with this parameter count.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the allowed values for category ('work/study') which is helpful, but the other six parameters (due, tags, notes, priority, metadata) receive no explanation. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient semantic enrichment.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function ('实际创建事项' = actually create todo item) and distinguishes it from the sibling preview tool (todo_create_preview). It also names the required category field, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the precondition: must first preview and pass whitelist/blacklist arbitration. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and separates it from the preview step. The sibling list confirms the preview/apply pattern, but the description itself provides the key usage rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.